A policy that misses the mark – understanding the mistakes of regulation in Switzerland - Part 2

Failure to achieve the goals set by the legislator

The way in which this proactive regulation is being implemented shows that the goals set by Federal Councillor Albert Rösti in establishing the Ordinance on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds are not working at all, in any respect. Here are the points that demonstrate this quite clearly. Here are the reasons:
 

Achieving an educational effect

This has been Mr Rösti's motto, explaining that wolves must learn to ‘fear’ humans. But let's be clear: shooting a wolf in the middle of the mountains/forest, with no herd or habitation, outside of an attempted attack, without the mandatory presence of its pack and without it necessarily having committed any attacks itself, is completely ineffective, the effect is totally nil, a huge joke. A wolf that does not return to the pack does not allow the pack to understand or assimilate anything about the causes of its disappearance/death, and the pack will learn nothing from it. An individual shot while passing through the forest, even in front of the pack, will not be able to provide the pack with any indication of the causes of its death in relation to the behaviour of its members at the time of the shooting. Finally, shooting adult wolves and leaving the cubs to fend for themselves, or to be raised by sub-adults who are themselves still relatively inexperienced, will lead to potentially serious problems in the future, without any major educational effect, as the parents will also have been shot without any undesirable action on their part.

Reducing attacks on livestock

In its only official statement since the start of the proactive regulation phases, the Federal Office of the Environnement (FOEN) issued a press release suggesting that attacks on livestock were declining in Switzerland. However, not only had they already begun to decline in 2023, i.e. before the start of proactive regulation (primarily due to intensified and improved protection), but it should also be noted that it is impossible to get a true picture of the effects of regulation based on national figures! It is essential to examine the situation at the local level, i.e. in the territories of the packs involved in several phases of regulation, and to also evaluate many other factors, particularly those related to herd protection (development, improvement, monitoring of the measures put in place and their effectiveness, etc.) and predators (shooting practices, roles and sexes of individuals killed, numbers, etc.).

If we look locally at the evolution of attacks in protected situations only, since 2023 and after the proactive regulation phases of 2023/2024 and 2024/2025, here is what we can observe:

Mont-Tendre (2 phases): constant increase in attacks since 2023
Chablais (1 phase): very slight decrease in 2024 (3 sheep) then sharp increase in attacks in 2025 (see Mission Loup article).
Hauts-Forts (1 phase): decrease in attacks in 2024 and 2025 but no shots were ever fired (appeal).
Les Toules (2 phases): attacks remain at the same level as before regulation.
Nendaz-Isérables (2 phases): decrease in 2024 (no shots fired – appeal) and attacks remain at the same level in 2025.
Hérens-Mandelon (2 phases): increase in attacks in 2024 then decrease in 2025 (note that no members of this pack were removed during the second phase!).
Augstbord (2 phases): sharp increase in 2024 then sharp decrease in 2025 (majority of attacks committed between August and December in 2024).
Nanz (2 phases): sharp increase in 2024 then stagnation in 2025, compared to 2023 (4 losses instead of 5).

These proactive regulation phases in French-speaking Switzerland have not yet had the desired effect, for a number of reasons cited in the summary of wolf regulation in Valais - 2023 to 2025. At the regional level, the consequences and statistics therefore do not point in the same direction as the Federal Office for the Environment's press release.

Reducing pressure on problem areas (Valais)

Let us take the case of Valais, which explains in its rare public communications that it wants to take action by removing wolf packs in order to ‘reduce conflicts and pressure on problem areas’. It will therefore be necessary to explain to the population, using scientific facts, how it intends to achieve this objective by:

* selecting and dismantling stable and very low-predatory packs (less than 5-7 annual losses, often across several farms) that should be left in place.

* culling at least 50% of wolves that do not belong to the packs involved and have committed the attacks and caused the pressure.

* removing wolf cubs from stable packs instead of continuing to regulate, either completely or partially, those recognised as problematic.

* making a number of errors in establishing territories and therefore shooting ranges, among other things.

* culling wolves believed to be solitary, but which are in fact in pairs or packs, without taking all the data into account (and without having to prove to the FOEN that no pack is actually present).

In 2025, the canton selected the Simplon pack for total regulation, even though it had caused... 0 losses in 2023, 1 in 2024 and 2 in 2025, all of which were protected animals. We would like to remind the authorities, who mention the number of attacks in unprotected situations in an article in the Walliser Bote, that these should not be taken into account in ANY form of culling! This region is home to two of the most problematic packs in Valais, those of Ausgtbord and Nanz, which killed 154 animals in protected situations between 1 January 2023 and 11 November 2025. We can clearly speak of a conflict zone or an area of high pressure, as defined by the authorities. And yet, for the 2025 proactive regulation, they have decided to target the third regional pack (Simplon) for three ridiculous losses over the same period, without any of the other two packs being targeted, even though they have reproduced this year. Not to mention that three other packs are currently being targeted in order to remove two-thirds of this year's cubs, even though they are stable, with only one attack per year for two of them and none for the third. By doing so, Valais is taking the wrong approach, a complete reversal.

Conclusion

The shooting of F259 on Mont-Tendre is yet another mistake, and probably not the last if nothing changes quickly, demonstrating the major problems caused by wolf regulation in Switzerland. There is an urgent need to reassess the overall situation at both federal and cantonal level, as some cantons are making mistakes in the field and also exceeding the provisions of the Law and Ordinance or European conventions on certain specific points. This is extremely worrying for a country like Switzerland, renowned for its pragmatism, which has now swung towards irrationality and populism.

In this article, we have chosen to explain certain points or situations and to try to shed some light on possible ways forward to improve wolf management in Switzerland. Criticism is only useful if it is accompanied by knowledge and concrete proposals to help move things forward. We hope that the authorities will take responsibility for changing this situation in the future.

Article: Team Wolf Mission
Photo: KORA (F259 during the fitting of the GPS collar) & Wolf Mission
 

BACK